Thanks to a number of people who have sent links about a new article published in the magazine Chemical and Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society. The article is written by Steven K. Ritter an is titled “Cold fusion died 25 years ago, but the research lives on: Scientists continue to study unusual heat-generating effects, some hoping for vindication, others for and an eventual payday”

It’s a fairly lengthy article which covers recent developments in the field, focusing on Randell Mills’ work with the SunCell at Brilliant Light Power, Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, and the field of LENR in general.

After lengthy discussions about what is going on in the field, the article concludes with a typical refrain:

“All the discussions about cold fusion and LENR end that way: They always come back to the fact that no one has a commercial device on the market yet, and none of the prototypes seem workable on a commercial scale in the near future. Time will be the ultimate arbiter. ”

I think the most significant thing here is that this is from a publication of the American Chemical Society, the premier professional/academic body in the field of Chemistry, and the subject is treated seriously. This article will likely be read by chemistry professionals the world over and could lead to further interest in the field by people in business, industry and the academic world.

PUBLIC RELEASE: 9-NOV-2016
What the ‘cold fusion’ debacle has revealed
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETYhttps://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/acs-wt110916.php
Disclaimer: (AAAS) American Association for the Advancement of Science and (ACS) American Chemical Society are not responsible for the accuracy of anything we have said about this over the previous 25 years.

http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

😀

Warthog

Well, as bad is the journalism is by the chemist’s organization(s), the physicists organization(s) are worse.

Dr. Mike

I agree with Frank that the most significant ramification of this article is that it will be read by many scientists who receive this publication from the ACS. One issue that I would have liked to have been discussed in Ritter’s article is the history of why Cal Tech and MIT were unable to reproduce the Pons-Fleischmann results in 1989, that is, they failed to sufficiently load the Pd with deuterium. Most chemists/scientists do not know that the Pons-Fleischmann results are readily reproducible with proper deuterium loading and carefully following other protocol used by Pons and Fleischmann.
The coverage of Mills’ and Rossi’s work seemed to be fairly impartial to me, which is certainly better than a negative bias. If Mills can really heat a graphite blackbody radiator with an area of about 1000 cm2 to 3000-3500K with less than 10kW input power, he certainly has something that will eventually be commercially viable. Likewise, Rossi will eventually have a commercially viable product if the test data from his 1MW plant shows that the plant really did deliver 1Mw output for 350 days with only about 20kW of input power.

LookMoo

Rossi seems to have cracked the LENR case all right.. but can he work with other people? Can he trust other entrepreneurs. Is he a industrialist?

I don’t think it is possible for one man to posses all these qualities necessary to alone commercialize such game changing invention. No nation will allow one man to control their future.

From following Rossi’s JONP posts for years, I think Rossi is fully aware of his abilities and weaknesses. He is not hesitant to state when things are outside his skill set. He has also implied the Leonardo is made of of a group of investors and that he is only the CEO at their discretion. Note he has indicated this both before and after the Industrial heat situation.

Steve Swatman

All publicity is good publicity, in the end.

This article does sound negative and poorly researched, it is meant to be so, it is meant to manipulate in a negative manner, and your comment enforces the negative side just for good measure,

But, if it brings LENr to just one scientist in the right place, one manufacturer, one inventor, then it may yet prove to be good publicity, if the right person, at the right time, in the right place, sees it, reads it and gets involved, well that is all we really need isnt it.

hunfgerh

Advances (acceptance) in “cold fusion” can only be achieved through a theory based on acknowledged physical processes. The Hunf or Widom and Larsen Theory is based on recognized physical processes “e-capture / n-capture”.

However, the implementation of the theory into practice is far more important.
The practical implementation involves constructing suitable materials in such a
way that reproducible results are always the same.

According to the theory of Hunf, “e-capture” is due to the action of high current densities on the valence electrons of the materials used at room temperature. The current densities required for this purpose require materials which can “carry” these current densities. This is only possible in superconductors.

Superconductivity at room temperature? Is this the attempt to explain the
impossibility (coldfusion) by another impossibility (superconductivity at RT).
No, the work in the following patent DE102008047334B4 prove the contrary.

Axil Axil

LENR is based on superconductivity at any temperature.

Valeriy Tarasov

Agree :). According to h-space theory it is exactly like this for the half of LENR explanation. The same mechanism – providing the possibility for proton to reach the nucleus – is applied for superconductivity and LENR (and for tunnelling as well).

Warthog

“The practical implementation involves constructing suitable materials in such a way that reproducible results are always the same.”

No phenomenon in the history of science has ever been brought to that state, not even those in routine production, sale to and use by the public. Every device, system, etc has a gaussian of failure.

US_Citizen71

There was also this letter dated 7 months ago but published on the Cambridge network 3 days ago according to my Google news feed. Attempts at not being the last holding the bag?

“A first good source(of info) is the New Energy Times. This is not a forum for cranks.” But seriously, there are more and more LENR/CF articles appearing lately in different publications and by different organisations which means the word is getting around. The date is more likely 4 November (DD MM YY), so it is recent.

Andrew

I consider Krivit a crank……

US_Citizen71

I forget although we share a common language we yanks write our dates differently.